Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakub Rojek

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. No policy-based arguments for keeping. Sandstein 11:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Rojek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMG, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to be mostly a resume and self-promotional (WP:PROMO). No significant coverage in third party, independently published sources. Geoff | Who, me? 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glane23,
Nothing in there seems to be self-promotional and all are verifiable facts (awards, compositions, album releases etc.)
I do not understand why you are suggesting the article to be considered for deletion, when it does exactly what any other artist page does on Wikipedia (lists accomplishments on their resume).
best,
Itzek Itzek1952Note to closing admin: Itzek1952 (talkcontribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Little to no coverage of this person in media that I can find, most albums are independent releases with only one on a semi-major label. Barely qualifies for NMUSIC. I don't see notability. Has never had a charted single, or any other quality we'd need for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 10:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.